1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,520 Welcome to the Bringing the Human Back to Human Resources 2 00:00:02,520 --> 00:00:04,840 podcast. I'm Tracy Chernoff, and I've 3 00:00:04,840 --> 00:00:07,280 spent my entire professional career in HR. 4 00:00:07,760 --> 00:00:09,640 Each week. We'll explore the delicate 5 00:00:09,640 --> 00:00:11,560 balance between people and business. 6 00:00:11,800 --> 00:00:13,600 With the. Aim to reconnect the two and 7 00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:16,800 create meaningful outcomes. Listen in as I share my own 8 00:00:16,800 --> 00:00:20,600 experiences, challenge the status quo, and chat with guests 9 00:00:20,600 --> 00:00:23,640 from various industries about our mission to bring the human 10 00:00:23,640 --> 00:00:25,720 back to human resources. Hi, everyone. 11 00:00:25,720 --> 00:00:27,920 Welcome back to the Bringing the Human Back to Human Resources 12 00:00:28,040 --> 00:00:31,960 podcast and the Policy Pulse episode of this month. 13 00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:37,520 And we have some stuff on the agenda this week that is hot off 14 00:00:37,520 --> 00:00:42,240 the press, like as in the last 90 or so minutes, according to 15 00:00:42,240 --> 00:00:44,560 Brian. So just a heads up, we're going 16 00:00:44,560 --> 00:00:48,120 to be talking about a couple of cases that we've kind of talked 17 00:00:48,120 --> 00:00:51,560 about a little bit or we kind of alluded to some things that were 18 00:00:51,560 --> 00:00:55,240 coming down the Pike. But just so you know, there's a 19 00:00:55,400 --> 00:00:57,640 probably going to be more information that we'll be able 20 00:00:57,640 --> 00:01:01,440 to share as we learn more. But this is super, super, super 21 00:01:01,440 --> 00:01:04,959 new information and we have a really interesting agenda. 22 00:01:04,959 --> 00:01:09,080 So we have two opinions is a couple of court cases that we'll 23 00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:10,400 share. And then we're also going to be 24 00:01:10,400 --> 00:01:15,080 talking about AI regulation in none other than the state of 25 00:01:15,080 --> 00:01:17,200 Texas, which is shocking in so many ways. 26 00:01:18,080 --> 00:01:20,440 So stay tuned for that. That'll be toward the end of the 27 00:01:20,440 --> 00:01:22,120 episode, but why don't we jump in? 28 00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:25,840 Brian, Thank you again for being our policy Pulse resident 29 00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:30,760 attorney expert and in all things HR and employment and all 30 00:01:30,760 --> 00:01:33,680 of that jazz. So with that, walk us through 31 00:01:33,680 --> 00:01:37,800 this Ames V. Ohio and what this whole opinion 32 00:01:38,440 --> 00:01:42,080 is kind of presenting within this court case. 33 00:01:42,680 --> 00:01:45,520 So like you said, this one just dropped this morning, just 34 00:01:45,520 --> 00:01:47,240 within the last 90 minutes, 2 hours. 35 00:01:47,880 --> 00:01:51,200 This we, we have touched on this one before the Ames V Ohio case. 36 00:01:51,200 --> 00:01:55,360 This was a, a white woman who was passed over for a couple of 37 00:01:55,360 --> 00:02:00,480 positions that were given to minority applicants internally. 38 00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:04,200 And she sued. It's not a legal term, but she 39 00:02:04,200 --> 00:02:07,680 sued essentially under the guise of of reverse discrimination. 40 00:02:08,520 --> 00:02:12,240 And today, to get right to the point today the Supreme Court 41 00:02:12,240 --> 00:02:18,960 unanimously decided that her case was valid, that the actions 42 00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:22,880 taken by her employer amounted to discrimination. 43 00:02:23,040 --> 00:02:25,600 Essentially, what the court has said, we can get into some more 44 00:02:25,600 --> 00:02:27,320 details, but essentially what the court has said is that 45 00:02:27,320 --> 00:02:31,680 nowhere in the statute from Congress back in, I don't know, 46 00:02:31,680 --> 00:02:37,360 whatever it was 50 years ago, does it say that discrimination 47 00:02:37,400 --> 00:02:41,160 is illegal unless you're white, unless you're heterosexual, 48 00:02:41,160 --> 00:02:43,960 unless you're a male. Like there are no disclaimers. 49 00:02:43,960 --> 00:02:47,040 It is discrimination. So that's why this is not 50 00:02:47,040 --> 00:02:48,880 necessarily a surprising outcome. 51 00:02:49,640 --> 00:02:54,840 But now we have it officially in our hands and it settles some of 52 00:02:54,840 --> 00:02:57,520 the discrepancies between the circuits because there were some 53 00:02:57,520 --> 00:03:02,440 circuits that were using this standard and other circuits that 54 00:03:02,440 --> 00:03:04,200 were not. Wow. 55 00:03:04,200 --> 00:03:07,920 This is, I mean, I guess it's, it isn't surprising, but part of 56 00:03:07,920 --> 00:03:12,280 me was a little surprised because it's not necessarily a 57 00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:16,560 case that someone may be on the surface would think would be 1. 58 00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:20,520 Because so much of what we see from a, you know, a litigation 59 00:03:20,520 --> 00:03:23,320 standpoint in terms of discrimination comes down to 60 00:03:23,320 --> 00:03:26,840 minority or marginalized groups, which of course women are part 61 00:03:26,840 --> 00:03:29,800 of that. But it's just, it's just 62 00:03:29,800 --> 00:03:33,280 interesting because I think it is fairly different compared to 63 00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:36,840 other cases that are out there or at least other cases of 64 00:03:36,840 --> 00:03:40,920 discrimination that have kind of come up or have come across our 65 00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:45,240 desks, so to speak. But at the same time, I think 66 00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:49,560 it's really interesting in terms of why this matters to those of 67 00:03:49,560 --> 00:03:53,680 us in HR and what this kind of further validates for everyone. 68 00:03:53,680 --> 00:03:58,240 Because to your point, there is this whole framework that didn't 69 00:03:58,240 --> 00:04:01,040 exist. That was that that you just 70 00:04:01,040 --> 00:04:04,920 pointed out that it didn't exclude these other groups and 71 00:04:04,920 --> 00:04:07,400 that discrimination can happen across these other groups, that 72 00:04:07,400 --> 00:04:09,440 discrimination can happen to anyone. 73 00:04:10,080 --> 00:04:14,200 So how does this impact HR and HR leaders? 74 00:04:15,240 --> 00:04:17,440 Yeah. And essentially the the the 75 00:04:17,440 --> 00:04:21,079 terminology is that this is sort of a a background circumstances. 76 00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:24,840 So the background circumstances is that this person is a member 77 00:04:24,840 --> 00:04:28,000 of a majority group. And so they have a higher burden 78 00:04:28,000 --> 00:04:30,320 to prove discrimination in the workplace. 79 00:04:31,120 --> 00:04:34,040 And that is what the court is saying is, is that's that's not 80 00:04:34,040 --> 00:04:34,640 legitimate. Wow. 81 00:04:34,880 --> 00:04:35,960 Interesting. Yeah. 82 00:04:35,960 --> 00:04:40,000 So the, there's several takeaways and, and one of them 83 00:04:40,160 --> 00:04:43,280 that I'll get to at the end is actually in a concurring 84 00:04:43,280 --> 00:04:46,040 opinion. But the the big take away for 85 00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:48,400 HR, and this is something that you and I have talked about a 86 00:04:48,400 --> 00:04:52,120 lot, is apply equal standards across the board. 87 00:04:52,600 --> 00:04:55,960 All employees need to be treated the same and treated fairly. 88 00:04:56,560 --> 00:04:59,280 So there's no higher bar for a straight employee, a white 89 00:04:59,280 --> 00:05:01,040 employee, a male employee, whatever. 90 00:05:01,640 --> 00:05:05,480 To prove discrimination under Title 7, you simply apply the 91 00:05:05,480 --> 00:05:09,760 same discrimination standard regardless of the people, the 92 00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:12,480 individual characteristics of the people involved in the 93 00:05:12,480 --> 00:05:16,000 situation. Aligned with that, we want to 94 00:05:16,000 --> 00:05:19,440 make sure that we're enforcing consistent policies and 95 00:05:19,440 --> 00:05:22,080 practices. We want to make sure that 96 00:05:22,080 --> 00:05:26,360 managers are being trained on how to how to spot potential 97 00:05:26,360 --> 00:05:31,040 discrimination and what to do when information like that comes 98 00:05:31,040 --> 00:05:36,000 up, whether it's it's from their own own analysis or from another 99 00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:39,520 employee coming to them. This from a business 100 00:05:39,520 --> 00:05:46,600 perspective, this is crucial to ensuring that the company has an 101 00:05:46,600 --> 00:05:50,680 adequate defense to any any potential discrimination claims 102 00:05:50,680 --> 00:05:55,840 from employees. So the concurring opinion in 103 00:05:55,840 --> 00:06:04,480 this case was written by Justice Thomas and he he noted some 104 00:06:04,480 --> 00:06:07,800 concerns about an additional framework. 105 00:06:08,160 --> 00:06:12,440 So this is not concurring opinions don't change any, any 106 00:06:12,440 --> 00:06:15,640 laws. It's just basically a way for 107 00:06:15,640 --> 00:06:21,800 someone or more justices to say, hey, I think we should also 108 00:06:21,840 --> 00:06:26,000 address this just to essentially give people a heads up. 109 00:06:26,120 --> 00:06:31,800 It can also sometimes be a, a bit of a, a wink to, to advocacy 110 00:06:31,800 --> 00:06:35,880 groups saying, hey, find a case that matches what I'm talking 111 00:06:35,880 --> 00:06:38,520 about here. We'll take it and maybe rule in 112 00:06:38,520 --> 00:06:41,600 your favor. But essentially there's a 113 00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:45,000 actually from a Supreme Court case, I think back in the 80's. 114 00:06:46,600 --> 00:06:50,520 The McDonnell Douglas framework is, is what it's what it's 115 00:06:50,520 --> 00:06:53,720 called. It has three parts to it. 116 00:06:54,280 --> 00:06:56,840 The the plaintiff, the person making the discrimination 117 00:06:56,840 --> 00:06:59,400 charge, must establish that there's evidence of 118 00:06:59,400 --> 00:07:02,360 discrimination. And that's usually a pretty low 119 00:07:02,360 --> 00:07:04,400 bar. It's pretty easy to, at least on 120 00:07:04,400 --> 00:07:06,200 its face, make that make that case. 121 00:07:06,760 --> 00:07:10,520 So then assuming the plaintiff does that, the burden shifts to 122 00:07:10,520 --> 00:07:13,040 the employer to provide a legitimate business reason, a 123 00:07:13,040 --> 00:07:16,280 non discriminatory reason for whatever employment action was 124 00:07:16,280 --> 00:07:19,240 taken. The plaintiff then has the 125 00:07:19,280 --> 00:07:22,560 opportunity to show that the stated reason the the reason the 126 00:07:22,560 --> 00:07:28,240 employer gave was actually a pretext for discrimination or 127 00:07:28,400 --> 00:07:34,840 was just not credible. And so that is something that 128 00:07:34,920 --> 00:07:39,600 the that the concurring opinion with Justice Thomas said this 129 00:07:39,960 --> 00:07:42,840 should possibly also be on the chopping block because it 130 00:07:42,840 --> 00:07:46,320 creates not to the extent that that the previous standard that 131 00:07:46,320 --> 00:07:51,000 was over overturned today provided. 132 00:07:51,000 --> 00:07:55,800 But it's it's because this is not this McDonnell Douglas 133 00:07:55,800 --> 00:08:02,040 standard is not provided for in statute or in the Constitution. 134 00:08:02,680 --> 00:08:06,600 We know Justice Thomas is a strict textualist when it fits 135 00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:11,040 his his agenda that he thinks this should be on the chopping 136 00:08:11,040 --> 00:08:16,520 block because it is so similar to what they have just overruled 137 00:08:16,560 --> 00:08:19,480 overturned today. So I know that was that was a 138 00:08:19,480 --> 00:08:24,040 lot of a lot of nuance there. But like so there is there is 139 00:08:24,040 --> 00:08:27,320 this additional standard that doesn't create the same level of 140 00:08:27,320 --> 00:08:34,720 burden for majority reverse discrimination plaintiffs, but 141 00:08:34,720 --> 00:08:38,159 it does still make things a little bit different. 142 00:08:38,440 --> 00:08:40,799 There's a little bit different level of the playing field. 143 00:08:41,159 --> 00:08:43,200 Interesting. Thanks for walking us through 144 00:08:43,200 --> 00:08:44,480 that. I have a question. 145 00:08:45,040 --> 00:08:50,680 I have been of the belief, generally speaking, that proving 146 00:08:50,680 --> 00:08:53,480 that a company acted in a discriminatory way is actually 147 00:08:53,480 --> 00:09:00,680 like kind of difficult to do it in the context of, especially in 148 00:09:00,680 --> 00:09:03,760 a circumstance where a company is making a decision with proper 149 00:09:03,760 --> 00:09:07,920 protocols. And you know, what's the term 150 00:09:07,920 --> 00:09:12,320 I'm looking for qualifiers. That said you, you kind of 151 00:09:12,400 --> 00:09:15,960 shared that it's actually fairly easy to for a plaintiff to come 152 00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:19,520 up with evidence that something could be discriminatory where 153 00:09:19,840 --> 00:09:21,560 maybe I'm understanding incorrectly. 154 00:09:21,560 --> 00:09:29,400 But do is my I guess, is my thought wrong that it's actually 155 00:09:29,400 --> 00:09:31,480 much easier to prove discrimination and that it's 156 00:09:31,480 --> 00:09:34,160 just a matter of the employer bearing that burden to prove 157 00:09:34,160 --> 00:09:36,680 that it's not? So that's an excellent question 158 00:09:36,680 --> 00:09:40,160 because it is difficult to prove discrimination. 159 00:09:40,560 --> 00:09:43,240 It is easy to show evidence of discrimination. 160 00:09:43,760 --> 00:09:45,480 And so. That's that's the difference. 161 00:09:45,480 --> 00:09:52,960 So evidence of discrimination is you are a woman and you've been 162 00:09:52,960 --> 00:09:55,800 fired, OK. Oh, that. 163 00:09:56,400 --> 00:09:58,000 Is, so it's. Basically easy to call. 164 00:09:58,040 --> 00:09:59,520 Discrimination. Exactly. 165 00:09:59,920 --> 00:10:06,640 And so, so like, it can't be. It can't be so, so outrageous 166 00:10:06,680 --> 00:10:11,000 like that. You know, there's four people 167 00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:15,200 that work at the company and you're the one who was fired 168 00:10:15,200 --> 00:10:20,160 because your position isn't is the only one in the company 169 00:10:20,160 --> 00:10:22,680 that's not in sales and it's not generating revenue. 170 00:10:23,240 --> 00:10:26,760 So and in an economic downturn like that is a legitimate 171 00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:30,080 reason. So it probably wouldn't, that 172 00:10:30,080 --> 00:10:34,080 might be like an example of something that may not move past 173 00:10:34,080 --> 00:10:37,040 the first stage. But generally speaking, that 174 00:10:37,040 --> 00:10:40,560 first stage is is fairly easy to show the possibility of 175 00:10:40,560 --> 00:10:43,280 discrimination. It's not the same level of of 176 00:10:43,360 --> 00:10:46,360 burden for a court to rule in your favor. 177 00:10:46,360 --> 00:10:51,240 It's just saying, yeah, there's enough here that we should at 178 00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:52,800 least move forward. Right. 179 00:10:52,800 --> 00:10:56,400 That the the that the person could have a case saying that 180 00:10:56,400 --> 00:10:58,440 the employer acted in a discriminatory way. 181 00:10:58,680 --> 00:11:01,120 Interesting. I mean, I'm sure that there are 182 00:11:01,120 --> 00:11:04,480 listeners out there who like myself who are thinking, yeah, 183 00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:07,600 I've had employees say you're discriminating against me. 184 00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:09,880 This is because I'm over the age of 40. 185 00:11:09,880 --> 00:11:13,160 This is because I'm a woman. This is because I'm a person of 186 00:11:13,160 --> 00:11:19,440 color, whatever that might be 99% of the time, at least in my 187 00:11:19,440 --> 00:11:21,920 experience there, you can never guarantee it. 188 00:11:21,920 --> 00:11:25,400 But there wasn't any discrimination necessarily in 189 00:11:25,400 --> 00:11:28,880 any instance of having that type of reaction. 190 00:11:28,880 --> 00:11:34,200 But obviously when I'm when employees feel scorned by a 191 00:11:34,200 --> 00:11:36,960 certain decision, they don't take it well because sometimes 192 00:11:36,960 --> 00:11:39,600 these are very, most of the time these types of decisions are 193 00:11:39,600 --> 00:11:43,560 very impactful on someone's livelihood and all of that jazz. 194 00:11:44,960 --> 00:11:50,520 That it's sometimes it feels like a threat to the company. 195 00:11:50,520 --> 00:11:54,440 And then the company either, you know, decides to move on from it 196 00:11:54,440 --> 00:11:57,880 or they end up getting, I guess sued potentially or getting a 197 00:11:57,880 --> 00:12:02,760 strongly worded letter from an attorney that then proceeds to 198 00:12:03,120 --> 00:12:05,880 some other facet of that process. 199 00:12:05,880 --> 00:12:12,080 But what are you, what are your thoughts when when people do you 200 00:12:12,080 --> 00:12:15,520 know, ultimately or maybe are at the end on the other end of a 201 00:12:15,520 --> 00:12:19,360 layoff or are being laid off or have a decision that's that is 202 00:12:19,560 --> 00:12:23,400 negative in generally speaking toward their livelihood. 203 00:12:23,400 --> 00:12:25,720 They either lose their pay or they don't get a promotion or 204 00:12:25,720 --> 00:12:28,760 whatever it is, I should say not lose their pay. 205 00:12:28,760 --> 00:12:32,440 They lose their job when they, when a, when an employee reacts 206 00:12:32,440 --> 00:12:35,200 that way, saying, oh, it's because of this discriminatory 207 00:12:35,200 --> 00:12:38,600 thing. Would you say that companies 208 00:12:38,600 --> 00:12:40,000 should be reacting a certain way? 209 00:12:40,000 --> 00:12:43,560 Or is it still reasonable to say, hey, I'm an HR leader. 210 00:12:43,560 --> 00:12:46,840 I know that, you know, obviously in our minds, we know that this 211 00:12:46,840 --> 00:12:49,800 decision was not discriminatory. We're just going to say, you 212 00:12:49,800 --> 00:12:53,360 know, we're sorry that you feel that way, we want to support 213 00:12:53,360 --> 00:12:54,600 you, blah, blah, blah, and move on. 214 00:12:57,320 --> 00:13:01,720 I'll say a couple of things on that and, and one of the things 215 00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:06,000 that I that I often tell clients is that we can't eliminate risk. 216 00:13:06,560 --> 00:13:10,800 We can understand risk and learn how to analyze it and prepare 217 00:13:10,800 --> 00:13:13,040 for it. And exactly to your point, 218 00:13:13,560 --> 00:13:17,160 that's kind of what HR is doing in, in that scenario that you 219 00:13:17,160 --> 00:13:21,120 just laid out there and they're understanding what the what the 220 00:13:21,120 --> 00:13:24,120 potential risks are and they're preparing for it. 221 00:13:24,840 --> 00:13:26,800 You can't eliminate it. You can't stop somebody from 222 00:13:26,800 --> 00:13:29,800 suing you. Going back to the discrimination 223 00:13:29,800 --> 00:13:34,160 specifically, it's important to remember that in order to hit 224 00:13:34,160 --> 00:13:38,040 that bar of proving discrimination, it has to be 225 00:13:38,040 --> 00:13:41,280 tied to a protected class, a protected category. 226 00:13:41,760 --> 00:13:48,800 So just being a woman who was fired is not necessarily 227 00:13:48,800 --> 00:13:52,080 discrimination. Being a woman who was fired 228 00:13:52,120 --> 00:13:56,040 because she is a woman is discrimination. 229 00:13:56,640 --> 00:13:58,200 And I think that's that's a distinct difference. 230 00:13:58,200 --> 00:14:00,760 And, and to your point about, you know, the emotion of, of 231 00:14:00,760 --> 00:14:04,080 layoffs and it, it, it sucks and you know, we're seeing a lot of 232 00:14:04,080 --> 00:14:08,480 that now, unfortunately. But to the emotion of it, a lot 233 00:14:08,480 --> 00:14:12,080 of people think like, well, I'm in a protected category and I 234 00:14:12,080 --> 00:14:15,760 was fired. And there may not necessarily be 235 00:14:15,760 --> 00:14:18,840 a connection there between the protected category and the 236 00:14:18,840 --> 00:14:21,800 termination itself. And that's where that's where 237 00:14:21,800 --> 00:14:25,360 there's often times a disconnect with people who unfortunately 238 00:14:25,360 --> 00:14:27,600 are part of a layoff or or a termination. 239 00:14:28,040 --> 00:14:29,640 Right. Yeah, that's helpful. 240 00:14:29,640 --> 00:14:33,480 I mean, I've heard it a dozen and 1/2 times, probably more 241 00:14:33,720 --> 00:14:36,600 when people do react that way. And, and I think you're right, 242 00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:39,880 it is you're ultimately doing a risk assessment and you're like, 243 00:14:39,880 --> 00:14:42,480 well, is there any risk of litigation here? 244 00:14:42,480 --> 00:14:44,280 Is there something that we should be looking at 245 00:14:44,280 --> 00:14:46,320 differently? And I really think that most 246 00:14:46,320 --> 00:14:50,840 times when someone, when a company, when an HR person is at 247 00:14:50,840 --> 00:14:55,080 the helm of maybe not at the helm, but part of this decision 248 00:14:55,080 --> 00:14:58,480 making, that they're aware enough and mindful enough that 249 00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:01,160 there have to be, you know, a set of protocols when making 250 00:15:01,160 --> 00:15:04,800 decisions like this, especially in mass layoffs and especially 251 00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:07,280 if there are a number of people over the age of 40. 252 00:15:07,280 --> 00:15:09,880 All of that, what is the older workers? 253 00:15:09,880 --> 00:15:12,880 Something something act O WPBA. AM I getting that right? 254 00:15:13,040 --> 00:15:15,240 Yeah, yeah. Older Workers Benefits 255 00:15:15,240 --> 00:15:17,160 Protection Act, Yes. BPA perfect. 256 00:15:17,160 --> 00:15:19,480 Yeah. That's like when and if you 257 00:15:19,480 --> 00:15:21,240 don't know about this, look it up. 258 00:15:21,240 --> 00:15:24,920 But you have to, you have to do an assessment to see, do you 259 00:15:24,920 --> 00:15:28,800 have to report on to the employee being impacted? 260 00:15:29,160 --> 00:15:33,280 How many other people are a part of that layoff? 261 00:15:33,280 --> 00:15:36,600 And especially if there are more than a certain number of people, 262 00:15:36,600 --> 00:15:38,880 kind of depends, I guess, on the, the amount of people being 263 00:15:39,200 --> 00:15:41,080 impacted. But how many people are over the 264 00:15:41,080 --> 00:15:43,760 age of 40? Because then it's, you know, it 265 00:15:43,760 --> 00:15:48,560 could be something that looks discriminatory potentially, not 266 00:15:48,560 --> 00:15:51,240 always. But I, I, I know that that's one 267 00:15:51,240 --> 00:15:55,880 way that there are laws that protect people of a certain age, 268 00:15:55,880 --> 00:15:58,920 for example. And it even applies outside of 269 00:15:58,920 --> 00:16:00,560 layoffs. Right, right. 270 00:16:01,200 --> 00:16:03,840 Over 40, yeah, if you're over 40, yeah. 271 00:16:03,840 --> 00:16:06,560 There are lots of things that that sort of come into play if 272 00:16:06,560 --> 00:16:09,560 it, even if it's a single termination, like for example, 273 00:16:09,560 --> 00:16:12,440 you're you, you get extra time to review any severance 274 00:16:12,440 --> 00:16:16,040 packages, you get time to revoke the package. 275 00:16:16,960 --> 00:16:18,360 Yeah. So there's there's a lot of 276 00:16:18,360 --> 00:16:21,800 things that employers need to understand about with layoffs 277 00:16:21,800 --> 00:16:24,600 and even with single terminations depending on on the 278 00:16:24,600 --> 00:16:26,040 characteristics of the individual. 279 00:16:26,360 --> 00:16:29,720 Right, Perfectly said, and it's a good reminder for everyone to 280 00:16:29,720 --> 00:16:33,360 know their rights. No way, No way you are owed. 281 00:16:34,360 --> 00:16:38,360 Moving right along on to our next case where an opinion was 282 00:16:38,360 --> 00:16:40,400 also released just a little bit earlier. 283 00:16:41,320 --> 00:16:45,600 That is Catholic Charities V. Wisconsin, where the Catholic 284 00:16:45,600 --> 00:16:48,720 Charities of Wisconsin was denied a state unemployment tax 285 00:16:48,720 --> 00:16:52,920 exemption by the state Supreme Court, holding these particular 286 00:16:52,920 --> 00:16:56,520 Catholic charity activities that were primarily charitable and 287 00:16:56,520 --> 00:17:00,000 secular, not religious enough to qualify for the tax exemption. 288 00:17:00,240 --> 00:17:02,840 The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously overturned 289 00:17:03,040 --> 00:17:06,800 holding Catholic Charities that holding that they were entitled 290 00:17:06,800 --> 00:17:09,640 or are entitled to the tax exemption because it operated 291 00:17:09,640 --> 00:17:11,640 primarily for religious purposes. 292 00:17:11,960 --> 00:17:13,160 Do you want to walk us through that? 293 00:17:13,359 --> 00:17:16,960 Frankly, I'm actually surprised that anyone could decide that 294 00:17:16,960 --> 00:17:19,040 something is not religious enough when it's like a 295 00:17:19,040 --> 00:17:21,200 religious organization. You know, it's like a funny 296 00:17:21,200 --> 00:17:23,200 thing to me, but I'm not an attorney. 297 00:17:23,960 --> 00:17:27,920 Yeah. And so I have, I have some 298 00:17:27,920 --> 00:17:30,400 publications in the last couple of months have asked me to to 299 00:17:30,400 --> 00:17:32,480 write some articles on this. And I've always taken the 300 00:17:32,480 --> 00:17:36,520 approach that I'm not going to be surprised by this decision, 301 00:17:37,040 --> 00:17:40,520 that this is what the Supreme Court has said, but I disagree 302 00:17:40,520 --> 00:17:44,920 with it. And so, yeah, you, you laid it 303 00:17:44,920 --> 00:17:48,440 out perfectly. Essentially, Catholic Charities 304 00:17:48,440 --> 00:17:54,000 set up its own unemployment program for it's employees that 305 00:17:54,000 --> 00:17:58,920 were terminated or laid off. And the state of Wisconsin said 306 00:17:58,920 --> 00:18:02,080 you can't do that. We have a program in our state 307 00:18:02,080 --> 00:18:05,960 and I think like 45 or 46 states do, and it's mandatory. 308 00:18:07,240 --> 00:18:10,040 And Catholic Charity said no, we have a religious exemption 309 00:18:10,040 --> 00:18:12,320 because we're a religious organization. 310 00:18:13,400 --> 00:18:16,880 And the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that's great, you're a 311 00:18:16,880 --> 00:18:20,160 religious organization, but the work that you do is non 312 00:18:20,160 --> 00:18:24,200 religious. You feed you, you know you you. 313 00:18:24,920 --> 00:18:28,280 You feed and clothe people. Regardless of their background, 314 00:18:29,000 --> 00:18:31,080 right? It's essentially non, it's 315 00:18:31,080 --> 00:18:32,720 essentially secular activities, right? 316 00:18:32,720 --> 00:18:37,640 So they are the the Wisconsin Supreme Court said you don't. 317 00:18:37,720 --> 00:18:40,400 This exemption doesn't apply because the activities 318 00:18:40,400 --> 00:18:42,920 themselves are not inherently religious. 319 00:18:43,640 --> 00:18:48,280 The Supreme Court today again unanimously has said no 320 00:18:48,640 --> 00:18:50,240 Wisconsin Supreme Court, That's incorrect. 321 00:18:50,240 --> 00:18:52,680 It's not the activities, it's the organization. 322 00:18:53,160 --> 00:18:56,840 So if the organization's mission and values is religious in 323 00:18:56,840 --> 00:19:01,960 nature, they can have this unemployment tax exemption. 324 00:19:02,360 --> 00:19:04,600 Wow. OK, Now I have a totally 325 00:19:04,600 --> 00:19:09,440 different perspective on this because I was, I'm thinking 326 00:19:09,440 --> 00:19:12,920 that, you know, all of their, I guess I was thinking similarly 327 00:19:12,920 --> 00:19:14,680 that it's like based on the organization. 328 00:19:14,680 --> 00:19:18,840 But then I think about all of these celebrities that open up 329 00:19:18,840 --> 00:19:22,560 like their own charitable organizations and they have tax 330 00:19:22,560 --> 00:19:25,840 exempt status. And it's like, well, it what are 331 00:19:25,840 --> 00:19:29,000 you like your organization could be, you know, like there are 332 00:19:29,000 --> 00:19:31,080 celebrities who open churches, for example. 333 00:19:31,080 --> 00:19:33,160 I'm not going to name names because it's all allegedly, 334 00:19:33,160 --> 00:19:36,080 allegedly, allegedly. They open up these these 335 00:19:36,480 --> 00:19:39,800 churches or different houses of worship and then they have a tax 336 00:19:39,800 --> 00:19:43,320 exempt status and God knows what happens under that status. 337 00:19:44,560 --> 00:19:49,600 It feels like there maybe it's like one of those situations 338 00:19:49,600 --> 00:19:52,480 where two things can be true at once, Like the organization 339 00:19:52,480 --> 00:19:56,800 could be exempt because they are a religious organization and the 340 00:19:56,800 --> 00:20:02,640 activities could still be tax liable, you know, but I, I know 341 00:20:02,640 --> 00:20:05,000 that's not how it works. Yeah, exactly. 342 00:20:05,160 --> 00:20:12,160 And, and the writing for the, the the court, Justice Katanji 343 00:20:12,160 --> 00:20:16,480 Brown Jackson said something similar to that, that that the 344 00:20:16,480 --> 00:20:20,840 government needed to remain neutral and avoid distinctions 345 00:20:20,840 --> 00:20:24,880 based on theological differences when religious groups are 346 00:20:24,880 --> 00:20:27,280 providing these types of secular activities. 347 00:20:27,480 --> 00:20:33,160 And that's where they sort of leaned on that, that churches, 348 00:20:33,200 --> 00:20:37,760 religious organizations can apply for and potentially 349 00:20:37,760 --> 00:20:40,960 receive these types of tax exemptions, specifically in this 350 00:20:40,960 --> 00:20:46,240 case unemployment. If they are providing sort of 351 00:20:46,240 --> 00:20:51,680 charitable activities, regardless of the secular Ness 352 00:20:51,760 --> 00:20:55,760 of the activities themselves, it's because the organization is 353 00:20:55,760 --> 00:20:58,760 religious. I, I do think that this is going 354 00:20:58,760 --> 00:21:03,240 to have sort of, we're going to see, we're going to see an 355 00:21:03,240 --> 00:21:07,800 exodus of, of religious organizations from state 356 00:21:07,800 --> 00:21:11,720 unemployment benefits, which is going to make that it's going to 357 00:21:11,720 --> 00:21:14,320 shrink the pool. Yeah. 358 00:21:14,320 --> 00:21:18,400 And to be clear, to be clear, if you work for, I probably should 359 00:21:18,400 --> 00:21:22,400 have said this to begin with. If you work for a a religious 360 00:21:22,400 --> 00:21:27,160 organization and you have an unemployment exemption in your 361 00:21:27,160 --> 00:21:31,600 state, that doesn't mean you are exempt from unemployment. 362 00:21:32,080 --> 00:21:36,480 You still have to have some sort of alternative system that at 363 00:21:36,480 --> 00:21:39,800 least meets your state standards so that your employees are taken 364 00:21:39,800 --> 00:21:42,360 care of when they're terminated or laid off. 365 00:21:42,640 --> 00:21:45,720 So it doesn't mean you can avoid unemployment tax altogether. 366 00:21:46,120 --> 00:21:48,600 There are some taxes religious organizations can avoid 367 00:21:48,600 --> 00:21:49,800 altogether, but this is not one of. 368 00:21:50,360 --> 00:21:52,480 Them right? I have so many questions about 369 00:21:52,480 --> 00:21:57,000 this because like if one of their employees is terminated 370 00:21:57,640 --> 00:21:59,960 and then they need to file for unemployment, they have to file 371 00:21:59,960 --> 00:22:02,560 with their organization that terminated them. 372 00:22:03,440 --> 00:22:07,280 I just, I just, I could see a lot of issues with that. 373 00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:14,800 Yeah, there are some, there are some organizations that manage 374 00:22:14,800 --> 00:22:21,160 this on a private basis for, for churches and and religious 375 00:22:21,200 --> 00:22:24,440 organizations like this. So it may not be that you've got 376 00:22:24,440 --> 00:22:27,280 to, you know, go back and talk to your boss necessarily or 377 00:22:27,560 --> 00:22:30,360 internal HR. It may be a vendor, a third 378 00:22:30,360 --> 00:22:33,240 party that, that you're dealing with much like a state agency. 379 00:22:34,040 --> 00:22:38,600 But yes, Catholic Charities, if my memory is correct on, on the 380 00:22:38,600 --> 00:22:44,160 actual case, they do actually have an internal unemployment 381 00:22:44,160 --> 00:22:45,040 program. They don't. 382 00:22:45,080 --> 00:22:49,080 They don't outsource that. Wow, this is really interesting. 383 00:22:49,080 --> 00:22:53,120 I'd be curious to see if like anything comes of this, if you 384 00:22:53,120 --> 00:22:57,320 know, to your point, the pool shrinks and that does impact the 385 00:22:57,320 --> 00:23:01,560 other people outside of these particular organizations like 386 00:23:01,560 --> 00:23:05,200 Catholic Charities, who then would be eligible for 387 00:23:05,200 --> 00:23:08,600 unemployment insurance. Like I I'd be curious to see if 388 00:23:09,280 --> 00:23:14,320 in these states where you can have this tax exemption as a 389 00:23:14,320 --> 00:23:19,760 religious organization, if that changes the benefit structure 390 00:23:19,960 --> 00:23:23,640 for everyone else because of the shrunk the the pool that's 391 00:23:23,640 --> 00:23:27,320 shrinking. It it that's, that's certainly a 392 00:23:27,320 --> 00:23:30,440 possibility because there's still the administration cost of 393 00:23:30,440 --> 00:23:32,840 doing it for from the state perspective. 394 00:23:33,640 --> 00:23:38,680 But in theory there would also be a reduction in the number of 395 00:23:38,680 --> 00:23:42,400 applicants. So a shrunken pool of applicants 396 00:23:42,400 --> 00:23:45,160 could match up with a shrunken pool of funds. 397 00:23:46,760 --> 00:23:50,920 But I also think you could, you could end up seeing kind of like 398 00:23:50,920 --> 00:23:53,520 you were saying earlier, organizations that aren't 399 00:23:53,520 --> 00:23:57,320 necessarily religious. Have a. 400 00:23:57,560 --> 00:24:01,320 Religious mission finding some way finding some way to to yeah 401 00:24:01,520 --> 00:24:03,160 to to yeah, because this exemption. 402 00:24:03,560 --> 00:24:08,560 Because if the, if, for example, if the state has a minimum for 403 00:24:08,560 --> 00:24:12,880 the unemployment insurance percentage or the, the, the 404 00:24:12,880 --> 00:24:16,400 rate, I actually am not super, super familiar in the 405 00:24:17,400 --> 00:24:20,520 unemployment insurance and taxation category of things. 406 00:24:20,520 --> 00:24:24,960 But let's say the state to your point has this, you know, 407 00:24:24,960 --> 00:24:27,480 requirement for every organization. 408 00:24:27,480 --> 00:24:30,480 Then you have an organization that is tax exempt from this, 409 00:24:30,800 --> 00:24:35,480 like Catholic Charities, that the unemployment insurance 410 00:24:35,480 --> 00:24:39,200 amount changes obviously based on the the the amount that 411 00:24:39,200 --> 00:24:41,920 someone earns. Like if it's a percentage, then 412 00:24:41,920 --> 00:24:44,000 obviously it increases. That increases the pool. 413 00:24:44,560 --> 00:24:49,080 I could see organizations just adhering to the minimum, which 414 00:24:49,080 --> 00:24:53,720 then also could impact when someone in their organization is 415 00:24:53,720 --> 00:24:55,360 eligible. Then for that unemployment 416 00:24:55,360 --> 00:24:58,160 insurance, they're not going to get the maximum that they're 417 00:24:58,160 --> 00:24:59,240 allowed. They're going to get that 418 00:24:59,240 --> 00:25:02,320 minimum whatever they contributed and I don't know, I 419 00:25:02,320 --> 00:25:05,760 just see like the that sure it it makes sense. 420 00:25:05,760 --> 00:25:09,280 It makes sense that someone you know is is eligible. 421 00:25:09,280 --> 00:25:11,240 They'll go to their organization, yadda yadda, 422 00:25:11,240 --> 00:25:14,880 yadda. But I don't know, I just, I 423 00:25:14,880 --> 00:25:18,080 could see things like ramifications of this, whether 424 00:25:18,080 --> 00:25:22,200 it's bureaucracy and like not getting the response because 425 00:25:22,200 --> 00:25:25,840 there isn't the same level of accountability as there is at 426 00:25:25,840 --> 00:25:28,320 the state level. Not to say that they do it 100% 427 00:25:28,320 --> 00:25:31,600 correctly every time, but there is a very ironed out process in 428 00:25:31,600 --> 00:25:34,680 most states. It's just interesting. 429 00:25:34,680 --> 00:25:36,920 And then they have to like manage that process internally. 430 00:25:36,920 --> 00:25:38,840 It feels like such a waste of money for them to do that. 431 00:25:39,360 --> 00:25:42,880 But then it's like, well, are there advantages to having 432 00:25:42,880 --> 00:25:46,720 someone manage that versus that, you know, that particular 433 00:25:46,720 --> 00:25:48,040 employee going through the state? 434 00:25:48,040 --> 00:25:49,360 I don't know. It's just very interesting. 435 00:25:49,360 --> 00:25:53,400 And I, I, there probably are listeners out there who work for 436 00:25:53,720 --> 00:25:56,640 religious organizations or organizations that are exempt 437 00:25:56,640 --> 00:26:01,240 from this type of tax. So any words of advice for them? 438 00:26:02,600 --> 00:26:07,840 Yeah, start with reviewing the the org's mission and and 439 00:26:07,840 --> 00:26:10,680 activities. This, this case has made it 440 00:26:10,680 --> 00:26:13,560 clear that it's not necessarily the activities that you're 441 00:26:13,560 --> 00:26:16,360 engaging in, the charitable activities that are the 442 00:26:16,360 --> 00:26:19,560 determining factor of whether you can, you can apply for and 443 00:26:19,560 --> 00:26:21,040 receive this unemployment exemption. 444 00:26:21,320 --> 00:26:24,800 It's whether your mission, whether you are inherently a 445 00:26:24,800 --> 00:26:26,920 religious organization. So you need to make sure that 446 00:26:26,920 --> 00:26:30,720 that's, that that's aligned and then look at your current 447 00:26:30,800 --> 00:26:34,160 eligibility for the exemption under this, under this new sort 448 00:26:34,160 --> 00:26:38,640 of standard to see if you if you still qualify or if maybe you 449 00:26:38,800 --> 00:26:42,160 now do qualify. And then like we talked about 450 00:26:42,160 --> 00:26:45,840 with with the third party vendors, look for alternative 451 00:26:45,840 --> 00:26:49,000 systems to outsource that burden. 452 00:26:49,000 --> 00:26:51,440 So it's not, it's not something that you have to shoulder 453 00:26:51,440 --> 00:26:53,200 internally. Interesting. 454 00:26:53,440 --> 00:26:55,880 One final question for you on this, and I don't know if you 455 00:26:55,880 --> 00:26:59,880 know the answer. When a, when an organization has 456 00:26:59,880 --> 00:27:03,720 a religious exemption, are there checks and balances that are 457 00:27:06,080 --> 00:27:08,760 executed at the, at the government level where it's 458 00:27:08,760 --> 00:27:11,560 like, oh, let's see how many employees you have on file? 459 00:27:12,520 --> 00:27:15,640 We've got to do an audit of XY and ZI asked that because I just 460 00:27:15,960 --> 00:27:19,280 wonder if bringing something like this internal could result 461 00:27:19,280 --> 00:27:23,440 in a lack of compliance with what's actually required at the 462 00:27:23,440 --> 00:27:27,320 state level. It's possible that could happen, 463 00:27:27,320 --> 00:27:32,680 yes, generally speaking, so states manage their unemployment 464 00:27:33,320 --> 00:27:36,880 somewhat differently depending on on where you're located. 465 00:27:36,880 --> 00:27:45,080 So, but generally speaking, yes, the unemployment, essentially 466 00:27:45,080 --> 00:27:49,040 the internal unemployment systems have to roughly match 467 00:27:49,160 --> 00:27:53,720 what the state provides. But yeah, it's not the state 468 00:27:53,720 --> 00:27:57,320 providing it. So to your point, what happens 469 00:27:57,320 --> 00:28:01,920 if if the company isn't managing it correctly or is paying below 470 00:28:01,920 --> 00:28:05,440 the minimum threshold for weekly, monthly benefits? 471 00:28:06,720 --> 00:28:10,320 That requires, to your point earlier, for people to know 472 00:28:10,320 --> 00:28:14,040 their rights. And that requires someone to not 473 00:28:14,040 --> 00:28:17,320 only know their rights, but also then have the time, effort and 474 00:28:17,320 --> 00:28:21,440 energy to go to the state and say, hey, this employer is not 475 00:28:21,560 --> 00:28:24,160 is not managing their unemployment exemption 476 00:28:24,160 --> 00:28:25,880 correctly. Interesting. 477 00:28:26,080 --> 00:28:28,240 Got it. Thank you very much for 478 00:28:28,240 --> 00:28:29,600 answering that. Yeah. 479 00:28:29,600 --> 00:28:31,840 Know your rights, people. That's the best of that. 480 00:28:31,840 --> 00:28:34,000 That's probably going to be the title of this episode. 481 00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:36,240 Know your rights. That's it. 482 00:28:36,240 --> 00:28:39,680 Just keeps coming back to that. So now we have a few minutes 483 00:28:39,680 --> 00:28:44,240 left to talk about Texas and their AI regulation. 484 00:28:44,240 --> 00:28:45,360 You want to walk us through that? 485 00:28:46,640 --> 00:28:52,080 Yeah, so the real short version of this is they have passed a 486 00:28:52,080 --> 00:28:55,080 new AI law. And yes, Texas somehow beat 487 00:28:55,080 --> 00:28:56,400 California into the punch on this. 488 00:28:57,800 --> 00:29:02,440 The the bill though is the the law is incredibly watered down. 489 00:29:02,760 --> 00:29:05,640 It doesn't take effect until January 1st of 26. 490 00:29:07,400 --> 00:29:10,320 It doesn't really even have much bite. 491 00:29:10,760 --> 00:29:16,880 The law itself just addresses something that's already illegal 492 00:29:16,960 --> 00:29:19,520 and that's discrimination against protected classes. 493 00:29:20,480 --> 00:29:22,760 And as we talked about earlier, that's already illegal. 494 00:29:22,760 --> 00:29:28,440 So all this does is clarify that using AI is also illegal if it 495 00:29:28,440 --> 00:29:30,080 discriminates against protected classes. 496 00:29:31,680 --> 00:29:34,040 I think it this is just my opinion. 497 00:29:35,240 --> 00:29:39,680 I think the law's intent, as it was passed originally, it did 498 00:29:39,680 --> 00:29:44,360 have some teeth, but as it was, as as it's been passed, I think 499 00:29:44,360 --> 00:29:49,080 it's just an appearance from the state to have regulation while 500 00:29:49,080 --> 00:29:51,800 avoiding significant burdens for employers. 501 00:29:51,880 --> 00:29:55,240 Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, look, frankly there have 502 00:29:55,240 --> 00:29:59,360 been over the last couple of weeks, there have been reports 503 00:29:59,360 --> 00:30:02,520 that have come out that companies that have been using 504 00:30:02,840 --> 00:30:08,400 particular AI based or AI driven recruiting tools specifically 505 00:30:08,800 --> 00:30:12,400 have have been sued for discrimination. 506 00:30:12,400 --> 00:30:16,200 And we can probably dig into some of those cases, but in a 507 00:30:16,200 --> 00:30:19,080 future policy Pulse segment as they come up. 508 00:30:19,440 --> 00:30:25,760 But it's there's something here because we AI it's very similar 509 00:30:25,760 --> 00:30:28,280 to social media. We saw this in the last 10 or 20 510 00:30:28,280 --> 00:30:31,800 years where social media had no regulation And frankly there 511 00:30:31,800 --> 00:30:34,840 still isn't much of any regulation for social media and 512 00:30:34,840 --> 00:30:36,960 their ramifications to lack of regulation. 513 00:30:37,440 --> 00:30:41,720 And ultimately the people who there were the the impacted 514 00:30:41,720 --> 00:30:45,080 party when there's no regulation is generally an individual or 515 00:30:45,080 --> 00:30:49,080 group of individuals. And so while I am surprised that 516 00:30:49,080 --> 00:30:53,640 Texas was the first, effectively very surprised, shocked in fact, 517 00:30:54,560 --> 00:30:56,560 I think it will cause a ripple effect. 518 00:30:56,600 --> 00:31:00,000 Maybe not so much with the same breath, because I think 519 00:31:00,000 --> 00:31:02,840 California and New York and New Jersey and maybe the 520 00:31:02,840 --> 00:31:05,720 Massachusetts and a few other states will probably add some 521 00:31:05,720 --> 00:31:09,600 more bite to their regulation. There's something really 522 00:31:09,600 --> 00:31:14,240 important in this that AI is an amazing advent and technology. 523 00:31:14,280 --> 00:31:17,600 It allows us to do so many things and yet we have to have 524 00:31:17,600 --> 00:31:19,960 human intervention like there has to be, especially with 525 00:31:19,960 --> 00:31:22,040 recruiting. There's already discrimination 526 00:31:22,040 --> 00:31:25,880 and recruiting. So there has to be some level of 527 00:31:26,320 --> 00:31:30,640 auditing checks and balances. Everything has to be set up in a 528 00:31:30,640 --> 00:31:34,760 way that ensures a lot, you know, ensures that things are 529 00:31:34,760 --> 00:31:37,680 done fairly equitably and non discriminatorily. 530 00:31:38,800 --> 00:31:44,120 And I I just think about the really coming to recruitment and 531 00:31:44,160 --> 00:31:47,880 AI like everything come AI gives you what you ask of it. 532 00:31:48,400 --> 00:31:53,160 If you say we want someone with 15 years of experience, like 533 00:31:53,160 --> 00:31:55,320 fine, it'll give you those outputs. 534 00:31:55,560 --> 00:31:58,520 But if you don't also say that you want to have people from 535 00:31:58,520 --> 00:32:00,920 different backgrounds or with different educational 536 00:32:00,920 --> 00:32:04,000 experiences you want to see, you know, whatever those outputs 537 00:32:04,480 --> 00:32:08,600 might look like, you do run the risk of AI only giving you this 538 00:32:08,600 --> 00:32:12,800 one small segment or group of individuals, especially in the 539 00:32:12,800 --> 00:32:16,480 recruiting side of things. I don't personally have any 540 00:32:16,480 --> 00:32:19,520 experience with AI based recruitment, but I can only 541 00:32:19,520 --> 00:32:23,280 imagine that in these companies where they're faced with 542 00:32:24,920 --> 00:32:29,920 lawsuits effectively that they just kind of offloaded that 543 00:32:29,920 --> 00:32:33,280 responsibility to the technology which is negligent. 544 00:32:34,440 --> 00:32:37,680 Exactly. But I agree with you. 545 00:32:37,680 --> 00:32:43,400 But in the three times, I think now in the last two or three 546 00:32:43,400 --> 00:32:48,160 years, the EOC has said that sure, vendors can be liable, but 547 00:32:48,160 --> 00:32:52,560 if you as the employer are using AI software and that software 548 00:32:52,560 --> 00:32:55,160 discriminates against a candidate, an employee, 549 00:32:55,360 --> 00:32:58,960 whatever, you are liable. Right, right. 550 00:32:58,960 --> 00:33:01,560 And this comes back to our last Policy Pulse episode. 551 00:33:01,560 --> 00:33:03,840 I think we talked about this too and it's true and it should be 552 00:33:03,840 --> 00:33:06,240 that way. The employer is liable you it's 553 00:33:06,240 --> 00:33:13,320 like just because you pay for an Amex platinum doesn't mean that 554 00:33:13,320 --> 00:33:15,720 when your card is stolen, you get, you know, Amex is 555 00:33:15,720 --> 00:33:18,400 responsible. Like, I mean, sure, they cover, 556 00:33:18,400 --> 00:33:20,040 you know, there's fraud coverage and stuff like that. 557 00:33:20,040 --> 00:33:23,320 Maybe it's a bad example, but like at the end of the day, you 558 00:33:23,320 --> 00:33:26,560 are the the benefactor. You were the person like, you 559 00:33:26,560 --> 00:33:28,840 know, that is employing A vendor. 560 00:33:28,840 --> 00:33:33,240 And I think this is where it makes sense to me that vendors 561 00:33:33,240 --> 00:33:37,280 are or AI technology or AI tools is not to blame here. 562 00:33:37,280 --> 00:33:40,440 It's, it's how we as HR professionals, as business 563 00:33:40,440 --> 00:33:45,160 owners use and embed this technology across everything. 564 00:33:45,160 --> 00:33:48,280 It's not even just recruitment, but really anything like there 565 00:33:48,280 --> 00:33:50,120 was that case. I don't know how many years ago 566 00:33:50,120 --> 00:33:53,040 at this point where or not case, but the situation where 567 00:33:53,960 --> 00:33:57,160 attorneys were using ChatGPT, this must have been a couple 568 00:33:57,160 --> 00:33:58,640 like when ChatGPT first came out. 569 00:33:58,640 --> 00:33:59,760 You probably know what I'm talking about. 570 00:34:00,000 --> 00:34:03,320 They used ChatGPT to look up case law and it was wrong. 571 00:34:03,800 --> 00:34:06,000 And then there was like a whole issue with this. 572 00:34:06,000 --> 00:34:09,639 I don't know all the details, but you know, Chachi BT does not 573 00:34:09,639 --> 00:34:11,880 always get it right. You have to still have human 574 00:34:11,880 --> 00:34:14,040 intervention. And it's not just Chachi 575 00:34:14,040 --> 00:34:18,639 allegedly, allegedly, it's not just Chachi BT it's really any 576 00:34:18,639 --> 00:34:21,199 AI tool. And and as we've talked about ad 577 00:34:21,199 --> 00:34:24,199 nauseam at this point, but it'll be interesting to see what other 578 00:34:24,199 --> 00:34:28,679 states kind of come to come to bat with AI regulations. 579 00:34:29,679 --> 00:34:32,239 It will be and I think that like you said, there are some states 580 00:34:32,239 --> 00:34:35,960 that that already have some some AI legislation sort of working 581 00:34:35,960 --> 00:34:39,040 its way through their through their state houses that have 582 00:34:39,040 --> 00:34:42,480 actual teeth. My fear is that because there 583 00:34:42,480 --> 00:34:48,080 will be a discrepancy between state laws on some AI laws 584 00:34:48,080 --> 00:34:52,800 having teeth and some not some regulations, I'm not the Supreme 585 00:34:52,800 --> 00:34:57,360 Court is going to step in and and make a yeah, make a ruling 586 00:34:57,360 --> 00:35:01,840 on that to decide what is what is appropriate across the board. 587 00:35:02,920 --> 00:35:06,440 I do think that like your point about social media is, is spot 588 00:35:06,440 --> 00:35:07,840 on. And that is my sort of my 589 00:35:07,840 --> 00:35:12,680 doomsday approach is that my doomsday thought is that we 590 00:35:12,680 --> 00:35:16,760 dropped the ball big time as a society on social media and the 591 00:35:16,760 --> 00:35:21,840 lack of regulation and we did not learn our lesson and we were 592 00:35:21,840 --> 00:35:24,560 going to do the same thing with AI. 593 00:35:24,920 --> 00:35:26,160 Oh, interesting. I think it's going to be 594 00:35:26,160 --> 00:35:28,840 completely unregulated. It's going to be there's because 595 00:35:28,840 --> 00:35:29,800 it's. Too hard to regulate. 596 00:35:31,360 --> 00:35:34,200 I don't. I mean, yeah, there's a lot of 597 00:35:34,200 --> 00:35:38,920 nuances to it for sure. But there's, there's a, there's 598 00:35:39,000 --> 00:35:44,080 a push in the House, the US House, not state federal house, 599 00:35:45,680 --> 00:35:53,520 to pass a law that essentially places a moratorium on AI 600 00:35:53,520 --> 00:35:58,240 regulation for 10 years, meaning there can be no state law 601 00:35:58,240 --> 00:36:01,960 regulation of AII. Don't, I don't think. 602 00:36:01,960 --> 00:36:05,160 It's got AI don't think it's got a big chance of of passing. 603 00:36:05,840 --> 00:36:07,680 I think it's frankly more for show. 604 00:36:09,560 --> 00:36:14,920 But it's, it's a, it's a, it's a non zero chance that it passes. 605 00:36:14,920 --> 00:36:19,080 And that, like, we now have regulation that says you can't 606 00:36:19,080 --> 00:36:22,680 touch AI for a decade and then, you know, in a decade we're all 607 00:36:22,680 --> 00:36:24,480 out of a job. Wow. 608 00:36:24,480 --> 00:36:26,160 Yeah, Well, that's the risk, right? 609 00:36:26,200 --> 00:36:28,480 That's what I was thinking. I was like, what? 610 00:36:28,920 --> 00:36:31,960 It's so interesting. I mean, let's say that that were 611 00:36:31,960 --> 00:36:36,400 the case, can private companies still have AI policies then? 612 00:36:36,560 --> 00:36:38,640 I would assume so, right. Like if they said, oh, we don't, 613 00:36:38,640 --> 00:36:40,440 you know, don't put customer information, don't put 614 00:36:40,440 --> 00:36:42,840 proprietary information in, like you don't know who's on the 615 00:36:43,320 --> 00:36:45,160 receiving end of what you're putting in. 616 00:36:45,800 --> 00:36:50,040 Absolutely. But if there's one thing in in a 617 00:36:50,040 --> 00:36:53,160 capitalist society that I don't trust, and that is corporations 618 00:36:53,160 --> 00:36:55,120 to do the right thing. Totally, Yeah. 619 00:36:55,240 --> 00:36:58,880 So we need regulation. Exactly. 620 00:36:58,920 --> 00:37:00,560 I mean. Look at social media, yeah. 621 00:37:01,200 --> 00:37:02,680 Absolutely. That's that's the perfect 622 00:37:02,680 --> 00:37:04,480 example. We we dropped the ball on that 623 00:37:04,480 --> 00:37:06,160 and and we're going to do the same thing here. 624 00:37:07,000 --> 00:37:08,760 Interesting. Well, you heard it here first to 625 00:37:08,760 --> 00:37:10,200 Mark, I'm going to mark your words. 626 00:37:10,240 --> 00:37:11,920 You said it at the 36 minute mark. 627 00:37:12,760 --> 00:37:16,560 You know, I, I can't let go of the social media thing because 628 00:37:16,560 --> 00:37:19,360 frankly, I'm, I've said it before on the podcast that I 629 00:37:19,360 --> 00:37:22,320 feel like I have to be on social media because of my business, 630 00:37:22,440 --> 00:37:25,320 podcast, whatever. And there's part of me that's 631 00:37:25,320 --> 00:37:28,600 like so anti social media. I just don't want it because I 632 00:37:28,600 --> 00:37:33,040 feel like it's this like all consuming thing, which is a big 633 00:37:33,040 --> 00:37:37,680 part of what kind of sparked discussions around regulation, 634 00:37:37,680 --> 00:37:40,840 especially social media for people under a certain age, 635 00:37:40,840 --> 00:37:43,320 kids, etcetera. And like, what's allowed? 636 00:37:43,320 --> 00:37:48,160 And there were major issues with content moderation. 637 00:37:48,160 --> 00:37:51,480 There still continues to be issues with content moderation 638 00:37:51,480 --> 00:37:54,760 and what is allowed to exist. And then it brings up this whole 639 00:37:55,160 --> 00:37:57,800 topic of freedom of speech if you're in the US, but what if 640 00:37:57,800 --> 00:38:00,000 you're outside? Because every, you know, you can 641 00:38:00,000 --> 00:38:04,320 be from Zimbabwe posting. And I could see that content 642 00:38:04,320 --> 00:38:07,120 here in New York. It's just one of those things I 643 00:38:07,120 --> 00:38:10,960 can understand why there's no regulation because it is kind of 644 00:38:10,960 --> 00:38:14,640 that runaway train that you just you create regulation and then 645 00:38:14,640 --> 00:38:16,120 there's something else and you have to create, right? 646 00:38:16,120 --> 00:38:18,400 And it's like, how do you manage that? 647 00:38:18,400 --> 00:38:23,400 And then obviously the social media creators, they have been 648 00:38:23,560 --> 00:38:27,040 notoriously anti regulation notoriously because some have 649 00:38:27,040 --> 00:38:33,120 changed their stance in some ways that allegedly no, But it's 650 00:38:33,120 --> 00:38:36,600 like then they they don't want the regulation because that 651 00:38:36,600 --> 00:38:38,840 restricts what they're able to do, the money that they're able 652 00:38:38,840 --> 00:38:40,480 to make. I Remember Remember when 653 00:38:40,520 --> 00:38:43,000 Facebook first hit the stock market, everyone was like, 654 00:38:43,000 --> 00:38:47,280 Facebook's not going to make money and Facebook's making 655 00:38:47,280 --> 00:38:48,960 money. And it's because there was no 656 00:38:48,960 --> 00:38:50,640 regulation. There is no regulation. 657 00:38:50,640 --> 00:38:55,120 Obviously social or digital advertising has become the major 658 00:38:55,120 --> 00:38:57,200 player in the last several years. 659 00:38:57,480 --> 00:38:59,560 So it's I agree, we dropped the ball. 660 00:38:59,680 --> 00:39:02,240 It'll be really interesting to see how the pendulum swings, 661 00:39:02,240 --> 00:39:05,240 though, because I don't think I'm alone in this feeling of 662 00:39:05,240 --> 00:39:07,920 like, social media sucks, even though you kind of have to be 663 00:39:07,920 --> 00:39:09,160 there in order to be in the know. 664 00:39:10,000 --> 00:39:12,400 And I just wonder how, like, generationally, things will 665 00:39:12,400 --> 00:39:14,240 change. And then I say that and it's 666 00:39:14,240 --> 00:39:15,680 like, well, Gen. Z is making their money on 667 00:39:15,680 --> 00:39:18,040 social media, so maybe it won't change. 668 00:39:18,240 --> 00:39:20,720 I don't know. It's crazy and wild. 669 00:39:22,160 --> 00:39:24,760 It is and it is. And I think that we're going to 670 00:39:24,760 --> 00:39:30,840 see a lot more tech advancement before we see any semblance of 671 00:39:31,440 --> 00:39:36,600 of regulation in that space. I think it's just it, yeah. 672 00:39:36,640 --> 00:39:40,200 I think we're just, I mean, laws generally, Congress generally is 673 00:39:40,200 --> 00:39:45,080 pretty slow to adapt, which is somewhat by design, but it's 674 00:39:45,120 --> 00:39:50,280 with something this complex with, I don't mean to make fun 675 00:39:50,280 --> 00:39:55,720 of most people in Congress, but like, they don't understand how 676 00:39:55,720 --> 00:39:58,080 all of this works. And I'm not saying that I do 677 00:39:58,080 --> 00:40:02,560 either, but like, they are generations removed from the 678 00:40:02,560 --> 00:40:05,600 creation of this type of stuff. And so for them to be the ones 679 00:40:05,600 --> 00:40:09,280 that are in charge of the regulation, yeah. 680 00:40:09,280 --> 00:40:11,320 I don't have much. I don't have much faith I guess. 681 00:40:11,480 --> 00:40:14,320 Yeah, it's really interesting, really interesting. 682 00:40:14,560 --> 00:40:18,680 It'll be very interesting. What's another word for 683 00:40:18,680 --> 00:40:21,120 interesting? You know, very, very 684 00:40:21,280 --> 00:40:22,320 fascinating. Yes. 685 00:40:22,320 --> 00:40:23,320 Thank you. Interesting. 686 00:40:23,320 --> 00:40:25,800 Interesting. Very fascinating to see how 687 00:40:25,800 --> 00:40:28,600 everything shakes out. I'm curious. 688 00:40:28,600 --> 00:40:30,560 Yeah. Well, look, at least we talk 689 00:40:30,560 --> 00:40:33,920 again next month and maybe there will be, maybe someone will hear 690 00:40:33,920 --> 00:40:37,400 this episode and say we need to regulate social media psych. 691 00:40:38,360 --> 00:40:41,960 Well, in that case, Ryan, thank you so much for walking us 692 00:40:41,960 --> 00:40:43,240 through all this. I'm sure there's going to be 693 00:40:43,240 --> 00:40:46,680 more to talk about on the AI front, especially since Texas 694 00:40:46,680 --> 00:40:48,920 was the 1st to do it in California is probably cringing 695 00:40:48,920 --> 00:40:52,560 about that. So thank you again for your time 696 00:40:52,560 --> 00:40:55,280 and and always appreciate your your expertise of. 697 00:40:55,960 --> 00:40:57,000 Course. Thank you, Tracy. 698 00:40:57,240 --> 00:41:00,520 Hey, just before you go, don't forget to subscribe to the show 699 00:41:00,520 --> 00:41:01,600 so. That you are the 1st. 700 00:41:01,640 --> 00:41:05,280 To hear when an episode drops each week and maybe leave a five 701 00:41:05,280 --> 00:41:08,120 star review and a comment about how much you love this episode. 702 00:41:08,320 --> 00:41:10,920 Plus, if you have someone in mind who would really enjoy this 703 00:41:10,920 --> 00:41:12,560 episode, make sure you share it with them. 704 00:41:12,640 --> 00:41:15,480 Thank you so much for tuning in and I'll see you next week.